To see part time hours as a necessity not a luxury

[Mollymoo78]

I work at a nursery three days a week on minimum wage. It's very much a job of convenience and I've recently been offered full time hours. Despite needing the money I've turned it down. I just can't face doing it full time, the thought fills me with dread and I know I'll be miserable. I need two days a week to catch up on jobs and just have breathing space and stay sane. Trouble is certain full time colleagues feel that I should have taken full time hours and I'm letting them down and being lazy (that's what they imply in their comments). I always worked full time prior to having children (doing office work) but since having children and being a sahm for quite a while I seem to have more to do and more of a need to finally have time of my own. Is it lazy and selfish and ultimately unreasonable to feel this way?

matchingblue- how benevolent of you to be worried about other people's pension pots.
Thanks for the warning.

I'm not in the slightest bit worried. I'm confused as to why you're being so belligerent?

Because of all the thinly veiled digs at us who choose to work part time.
We are lazy, we set poor examples to our children, we sponge off the state, we sponge off our husbands, we are irresponsible because we are not financially prepared for our retirement.

THose are not digs?

Ah right well I didn't say any of that and can't see any indication anyone who has posted today did either so not sure why you've suddenly brought it up.

I don't see them as digs actually. You work part time mindtrope and it clearly works for you and your family, but surely you must realise that your personal situation in having built up an excellent pension which you've managed to pay into while not working full time is exceptionally rare?

That's a fact, not an opinion, and women are massively disproportionally affected. You only need to do a quick google if you doubt it. A frightening percentage of women have inadequate pensions. Just as frightening are the misconceptions among many women- e.g. If they outlive their dh they'll 'inherit' his entire pension.

Private pensions have taken a massive hit since the recession, so again, unless you are in an extremely rare position of having built up a extremely good, protected pension, while not working full time, then you're probably going to be in for a shock.

The people I know who have the best pensions (not counting current pensioners) are those who've worked full time and have gold plated public sector pensions (even these are being affected now, but I mean the protected pot which people have accumulated)
Goodness knows, as a full time teacher at management level I found that even the very few years I worked 3 days a week when my kids were pre schoolers, has knocked a chunk off my pension; I'm just very relieved that I stepped back up to f/t as soon as my youngest started school.

I think this IS a big issue which predominantly affects women, and just because some individuals are in the rare position of working part time but having a great pension, doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that many women will be living out their old age without much financial security.

We have never paid into a pension as we have seen so many people lose out.
I think to say that women in particular miss out with a pension if only working pt is a bit silly in this day and age.
Yes, there will be some who don't end up with much, but there's a good many who are savvy and have made provision for their old age.
ours is in the form of properties having bought and done up several now.
And yes, it was possible on one low income.

I don't know how many times people on here have to say "We are all different".
I do think people need to consider pensions before working pt, but I tend to believe that women have the intelligence to work this out.

To cite retirement provision as an important reason not to work full time is apeshit.

I have had two decades of part time work and it has been fantastic. I will never work full time again, but I don't really want to retire either as I love what I do.
I would have to be sick or infirm to want to stop work.
We have a large home with no mortgage and a large amount of savings.

Yeap, mindtrope and gillybeanz- no one is denying that you two have wonderful lives and fantastic pensions and assets- well done you!

I was merely pointing out that the majority of women dont, and often don't realise that they are facing financial strain until it hits them. Even women with happy marriages who don't get divorced are statistically likely to outlive their husband. It's an issue which affects women, and therefore is worthy of a broader discussion than just 'I'm a part timer and I'm quids in'

Munster

Most women I know would be worse off in the case of a divorce whether they sah, work pt or ft.
Of course pension provision needs to be discussed, but I don't agree with your comment that the majority of women don't have enough pension provision.
You don't have to pay money into a fund to have a decent pension, and when we hear of stats, the question has usually been do you pay into a pension and how much.
I have answered these questions myself and said no. Which of course sounds like I don't have provision.
Why are you so keen to point out that me and mindtrope are the exception.

I would love to work part time. I'm trying to find the right role that will allow it. DH works 3 days a week - if I could find something at 4 days a week then we could both do 4 days and leave the childcare as it is.

It's pretty hard though. I'm considering maybe just applying for ft jobs then asking at second interview if they'd consider part time.

Ps it's also quite patronising to say that 'most women have the intelligence to work out that their pension will be affected by working part time.' The actual FACTS bear out that a scary percentage of women have no, or inadequate, provision. Either you assume that most women are a bit thick (which I don't) or you realise that it's rather more complex than that.

A lot of it is to do with social structures and legislation... until very recently it was only the mother who could take maternity leave (whereas now there's shared parental leave) - therefore it was by default always the women who would have to take some time off work. This no doubt led to vastly more women than men subsequently going part time. No doubt there are many other factors which directly and indirectly have led to women being most affected by inadequate provision-personally I don't agree that women not being very intelligent is one though.

And TBH a fair amount probably comes down to chance too. I was writing on another thread in Education (I'm a teacher) that it was partly down to luck that a full time job arose in a local school when my youngest child turned 4 and I was half-thinking about increasing from 3 days a week. TBH if I'd had even just one year of continuing on 3 days (with my children all in school) I could easily have fallen into the trap of believing I needed those two extra weekdays to cope with running the house. Humans tend to be creatures of habit... if I'd worked part time any longer I might still be doing it now. As it turned out, that fortunate full time post cropping up, combined with the fact I was reasonably keen to move to management level (though I wouldn't describe myself as hugely career-driven) led to me progressing my career.

But I'm very aware things might not have turned out so fortunately, and I'm very aware that for very many women, it isn't like that

As a single parent, I currently work part-time. I'm fortunate to have an exH that pays me a comfortable amount of maintenance, so I can afford this.

And to be honest, the thought of full-time teaching whilst being the main carer of two children, just fills me with dread. Their dad lives too far away to help out midweek & I just do not want them to have two parents who will be largely absent - I know I'd be stressed to the hilt as the amount of paperwork & prep that comes with teaching is getting worse.

I know I'm lucky though as some people have no choice.

But I know my mental health would suffer and the knock on effect to my children wouldn't make it worth it.

I'll be screwed in my old age, pension wise, but that's a price I'll have to pay

Gilly -ok I'll spell it out. Most women havent paid in adequately to a pension. Most women dont own multiple BTL properties, and havent done so fantastically well out of doing up and selling on properties that they have huge sums to invest. As an estimate you need around 100k in the pot for every 6k per annum annuity.
That's why I'm stating the fact that you are the exception.

I don't see how crediting women with intelligence is patronising.
I'm not the brightest button, but even I know I needed to make provision for old age.
On the contrary it wasn't me saying that women lacked the intelligence, it was yourself suggesting that provision for old age is complex.
It really isn't that difficult and in the past it wasn't lack of intelligence that stopped women having sufficient provision, it was the society we lived in and social norms of the time.
And I'll spell it out to you. If most women haven't paid adequately into a pension it doesn't mean they don't have provision.
Many people I know don't trust pensions, you can hardly blame them.

As usual though, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I work PT, not through laziness IMO but because it's important to us that one of us is around for the children. It's all very noble and sensible to both work FT for your pension, but for us that would mean our kids in childcare 8-6 Mon-Fri and weeks at a time in the hols. That is a heavy price for them to pay, IMO, for boosting my pension. I think keeping my professional job 3 days PW, with the pension etc that goes along with that, is a perfectly sensible middle ground. One of my best friends works FT and I can see how much richer they will be in years to come, but I can't imagine I'll ever regret picking my children up from school most nights vs sending them to wraparound 10 sessions a week from age 4, or getting a nanny. I'm surprised that's controversial tbh.

this isn't all about you gilly. We know you're fine. I'm talking about most women. The facts are out there, just read the news, do a bit of research....
Why do you think there are petitions To the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions doing the rounds, campaigning for better state pension provision for women who have been disproportionately affected? And that's for the state pension, which is crap anyway - but which many women will wholly rely on.... Erm... because they dont have adequate private provision.

It's all very well to sit in a little bubble because you've done up lots of properties and invested hundreds of thousands of pounds (im assuming it must be in that region because you need that much for any decent provision) but most women haven't got that.
I fail to see how that's so hard to understand

For me it would be worth the risk.

I would rather work part time when I have kids to raise even if it means no pension.

That's fine mindtrope. No one is disputing your choice - it sounds as though you've thought it through sensibly. I myself worked 3 days a week while my children were pre schoolers- I didn't want to use childcare full time (not because there's any problem with that, I hasten to add; the kids would have been fine but I think I'd have felt I was missing out)

The recent posts have really been about the wider situation than just individuals' experiences. I'm not willing to ignore the facts which are true for most women, just because I'm one of the fortunate minority

I don't fail to understand at all Munster
I haven't had hundreds of thousands of pounds, I'm not sure why you'd think that at all, I'm one of the many women who haven't got this too.
Properties are pretty cheap round here, and of course there are auctions, but I digress.
As for "most women" We are constantly being told that "most women" work ft, isn't that what this thread is about.
So most women who actually work ft will have no pension provision? This is what I don't believe. Most I know, are making provision for their future.

You said you've made provision through doing up properties gilly, and I was basing the figures what you need invested equated to an annuity.
I don't see the relevance of properties being cheap- you need to have made absolutely shed loads on developing properties to get decent provision. Of course, buying a cheap house to live in yourself will keep costs down- but you were talking about property as investment

Yes, it's worked for us as have been doing it for years now.
As with a pension, the amount will/ has grown over the years, with the initial investment not being very big.
I guess when you start a pension the first months investment isn't very much.

Well you're obviously not going to let us into your secret. Bearing in mind 200k investments would give a very modest annuity of about 12k, it's hard to marry up your insistence that you haven't really got that much invested

Munster

I don't have any secret, it's just as I have pointed out throughout our conversation, everyone is different.
I'm sure you know about investing in property, if held for long enough the return is 10's or hundreds of thousands.
My whole point was that some people decide to do it differently to others, you'll find lots of self employed/ small business owners who don't have a pension. I'm also pretty sure there are other things that people invest in that I don't know about.

Yes- as I said, hundreds of thousands. It's ok- well done you! The only thing I took issue with is your denial of the fact that most women don't have investments like this to set them up for their later years, and your reluctance to acknowledge that you have made Hundreds of thousands to invest this way.

You and I are the fortunate ones- I have a very good pension and you've making your provision through investing money made through property. But we're in a minority. Most women have woefully inadequate provision- and that's an issue worthy of discussion

I am concerned about my pension but I am hoping that I will be able to start topping up mine when childcare costs lessen. I realise I am missing out by going part time but at the minute DH and I have made the choice to aim to reduce stress levels to all by my reduced hours.

As it is I have the familiar dread of going in, eyebrows raised at the time I arrive and leave (asked if I am leaving early 'again') and being criticised for having had half term off awaiting me tomorrow. Working full time there would remove all that I guess but it would be great if my workplace was a bit more supportive of part time working in general. Less experienced people might leave that way.

Actually as I write this I am genuinely concerned about my pension- am hoping increasing contributions further down the line will soften the blow but I'm aware I'll be taking a big hit.